Are Massachusetts Cops Just Better?

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
Post Reply
User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Are Massachusetts Cops Just Better?

Post by BoSoxGal »

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/ ... aturestack


Tried negotiation and deesclation, then just shot his weapon out of his hand. Nobody died.

I’m impressed, I gotta say. I thought all cops were taught to shoot for center mass and blow the perp to smithereens at the first sign of uncooperativeness.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Are Massachusetts Cops Just Better?

Post by Burning Petard »

I believe the usual doctrine is for the cop to shoot when their life is threatened, and to do so to stop the threat. Under the usual immediate crisis, precise muscle control is very rare. They shoot to stop the threat, keep shooting until the threat ends. That does not take into account that the cop can easily 'empty his gun in a very short period of time. The threat may have been ended after the first shot, but the brain takes a while to process that data, long enough to empty the gun.

This case was very different. The cop who fired the shoot was probably behind cover, not really very threatened with his body armor, had time to carefully decide just how what the distance was and what the background was, where a possible miss could go. Does not say so, but the special unit involved here probably used a rifle, not a pistol. And he did not do the Lone Ranger 'he shot the gun right out of my hand" rather he actually shot the hand right out of the gun.

Or possibly he was aiming at 'center of mass' and missed.

snailgate.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13927
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Are Massachusetts Cops Just Better?

Post by Joe Guy »

It would be nice if shooting that accurately could be counted on. I wonder if that was the SWAT officer's intention.

As an aside, the article got me to wondering if I know how to write correctly. Specifically, when it comes to these examples:
Crisis negotiators worked throughout the night. At around 6 a.m., the suspect made a gesture with their gun that caused a SEMLEC SWAT officer to fire one shot at him, police said. The bullet struck the suspect’s hand, causing them to drop the weapon, police said.

The suspect was taken to a local hospital under police custody so that their hand injury could be treated.

.......

The suspect’s name and any charges against them were not disclosed Thursday.
I'm not a grammar expert and things have changed in recent years, but I thought "their" and "them" would not be proper to use for someone who has been identified as male ("him") - unless the "their" and "them" is telling me that the person is not really a "him" but is one of the many new sexes that we now are required to properly address. I guess I need to go back to school.

Just a thought....

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Are Massachusetts Cops Just Better?

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Joe Guy wrote:
Fri Feb 17, 2023 3:06 am
As an aside, the article got me to wondering if I know how to write correctly. Specifically, when it comes to these examples:
Crisis negotiators worked throughout the night. At around 6 a.m., the suspect made a gesture with their gun that caused a SEMLEC SWAT officer to fire one shot at him, police said. The bullet struck the suspect’s hand, causing them to drop the weapon, police said.

The suspect was taken to a local hospital under police custody so that their hand injury could be treated.

.......

The suspect’s name and any charges against them were not disclosed Thursday.
I'm not a grammar expert and things have changed in recent years, but I thought "their" and "them" would not be proper to use for someone who has been identified as male ("him") - unless the "their" and "them" is telling me that the person is not really a "him" but is one of the many new sexes that we now are required to properly address. I guess I need to go back to school.

Just a thought....
You're on the right track there, Joe.   Since the writer had no way of knowing which pronoun the perpetrator preferred, the paper defaulted to 'they' as per the NYT Book of Style.

Modern-day journalism — succumbing to woke bullshit — in action.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13927
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Are Massachusetts Cops Just Better?

Post by Joe Guy »

Bicycle Bill wrote:
Fri Feb 17, 2023 4:21 am

You're on the right track there, Joe.   Since the writer had no way of knowing which pronoun the perpetrator preferred, the paper defaulted to 'they' as per the NYT Book of Style.

Modern-day journalism — succumbing to woke bullshit — in action.
It seems to me that we are now being expected to not refer to anyone based on their appearance.

In other words, if I see an older person with a beard traveling on the sidewalk in a wheel chair, I should not assume that person is old, male or disabled.

Because if I do something like that, I'm offending every person born female that may have had a sex change, is perfectly able but enjoys riding wheel chairs.

I have to start learning how to describe people without offending anyone.

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Are Massachusetts Cops Just Better?

Post by Burning Petard »

I like using these indefinite pronouns when the number (plural or singular) or gender is not relevant to the narrative.I think I need to investigate this NY Times style. I am ignorant about it. Joe Guy unintentionally identifies a problem. The old guy, the older guy. Old, Older -- compared to what? Now that I am beyond the biblical age expectancy, I notice my personal calibration can be confusing to others. The 40 year old is a young kid for me.

snailgate.

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Are Massachusetts Cops Just Better?

Post by Econoline »

Burning Petard wrote:
Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:03 am
Now that I am beyond the biblical age expectancy, I notice my personal calibration can be confusing to others. The 40 year old is a young kid for me.
I can totally sympathize. It can be particularly strange when dealing with doctors. (e.g., The surgeon who did my colonoscopy a couple of months ago was a 30-something young woman.) And God help us should we absentmindedly refer to (or even THINK about) a human female 50 years our junior as a "girl"!
:beat :shock: :oops:
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

Post Reply